Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran
It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979.
Advertisement
Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination.
Advertisement
Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.'
All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.'
So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!'
These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike.
They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely.
The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region.
Advertisement
While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making.
Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.'
A shifting tune
Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune.
He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized.
Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran.
The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
Advertisement
At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way.
They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately.
Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate.
Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader.
Advertisement
Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government.
The 'biggest threat to Opsec'
By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago.
The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs.
B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran.
But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming.
The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced.
To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected.
Advertisement
During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.'
Shaping the conversation
By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media.
'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!'
By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war.
That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision.
'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.'
Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran.
'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.'
Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order.
On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet.
Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan.
But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent.
Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict.
On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent.
But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them.
But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time.
A one-off, or not
A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace.
U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan.
As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday.
At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat.
Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire.
Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate.
By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed.
Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal.
But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting.
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???'
This article originally appeared in
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
43 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Tarnished by Oct. 7, Netanyahu's legacy may be reshaped by war with Iran
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — In the days after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed a shellshocked shadow of himself. He looked diminished and downtrodden by the surprise assault that created a national emergency and caused his public support to plummet. Now, as Israel faces another unprecedented crisis in a war with Iran, Netanyahu appears rejuvenated. With the U.S. lending its support against a threat he has devoted his life to confronting, Netanyahu is demonstrating a resurgent confidence that could signal a new turning point in his lengthy political career. Even as Iranian missiles pound Israeli cities, Netanyahu, 75, has the chance to salvage his sagging political fortunes and reshape a legacy punctured by Hamas' attacks, a corruption trial and a history of divisive rule. If he succeeds, it will cement his reputation within Israel as a political wizard who can rise from the ashes. 'Netanyahu has proven that he is a phoenix,' said veteran Israeli journalist and Netanyahu biographer Mazal Mualem. Netanyahu's troubled legacy is granted a lifeline The war is far from won. Israel is still vulnerable to Iranian attacks, and whatever political boost Netanyahu gains from the latest developments could dissipate by elections scheduled for next year. He is the same polarizing leader he was yesterday. Internationally, he faces an arrest warrant for charges of war crimes in Gaza. He is widely reviled across the Arab world. And after nearly two years of regionwide conflict, many critics see him as a warmonger responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East. But domestically, where Netanyahu's eyes are always focused, his legacy has been granted a lifeline. Many Israelis are attuned to Netanyahu's campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which they view as a major threat to their country and are therefore relieved by the direct involvement of the U.S. military. 'Netanyahu is seen as a very divisive and destructive leader. He is seen as someone who talks a lot and doesn't do anything,' said Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu aide. 'Today, Netanyahu redeemed himself, big time.' In an early morning video statement after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu could barely contain a smile as he thanked President Donald Trump. He said the intervention would 'change history.' It's a stunning turnaround for an Israeli leader who critics and analysts largely wrote off in the days after Oct. 7, when he presided over the deadliest attack in Israel's history. Many hold Netanyahu personally responsible for overseeing policies that enabled Hamas to retain power in Gaza for many years and build up a formidable arsenal. Netanyahu has been buoyed occasionally since then by military successes against Hamas and the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. But with the Gaza war dragging on with no end in sight, and dozens of Israeli hostages still in captivity, his approval ratings have remained low. The week-old assault on Iran, highlighted by Sunday's U.S. attack, grants Netanyahu a chance for salvation. Netanyahu's yearslong focus on Iran The war caps a yearslong focus — some would say obsession — by Netanyahu on Iran and its nuclear program. Since his first term as prime minister in the 1990s, and throughout his current, nearly uninterrupted 16-year rule, he has made challenging Iran's nuclear program his life's work. Netanyahu has long portrayed Iran as an existential threat — pointing not only to its nuclear program, but also its development of long-range missiles aimed at Israel and support for hostile militant groups on Israel's borders. Iran became a repeated theme in his speeches to the Israeli and international public. He famously hoisted a cartoon bomb from the dais of U.N. General Assembly as he accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran insists the program is for civilian purposes. At the same time, Netanyahu has made no mention of Israel's own widely suspected nuclear weapons arsenal. Netanyahu took significant diplomatic risks to pursue his crusade, including with a 2015 speech to Congress that was organized by Republican lawmakers, angering the Obama administration. During the speech, he railed against a U.S.-led deal on Iran's nuclear program just as negotiators were wrapping up its details. Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement during his first term. Some critics say that it was Netanyahu's laser focus on Iran, and the military and intelligence resources devoted to it, that blinded the Israeli leader and the defense establishment to the threat Hamas in Gaza. Hamas' attack is a stain on Netanyahu's legacy Hamas' attack, in which 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage, blindsided Israel. Netanyahu, who likes to portray himself as a security hawk and the only true guardian of Israel, is seen by many as having promoted a failed strategy in the years preceding the Oct. 7 attack by sending huge amounts of aid into in Gaza under the misconception that Hamas was deterred. In fact, the Palestinian militant group would stage a brutal assault that would crush Israel's vaunted defenses and change the course of history. In the aftermath of Hamas' attack, Netanyahu's public support plummeted. Netanyahu shrugged off accountability for Hamas' attacks, pointing a finger at his security chiefs and rejecting demands for a public inquiry into the failures. He says he will answer tough questions about his role after the war, now in its 21st month. Any political boost from the war could fade by elections Netanyahu's work is not done. The war in Gaza grinds on, and Netanyahu still dreams of seeing a normalization deal between Israel and Arab powerhouse Saudi Arabia as part of his legacy. The question remains whether Netanyahu will rebound politically from the Iran war. Polls taken last week showed that Netanyahu would still struggle to form a coalition if elections were held today. Even if he gets a bump from Sunday's U.S. attack, it's not clear how long that might last. Bushinsky compared Netanyahu's potential political predicament to a world leader he likes to compare himself to, Winston Churchill, who, after leading the allies in triumphantly defeating the Nazis in World War II, did not get reelected in a 1945 vote in part because public priorities shifted dramatically. 'Bibi may be 'King of Israel,' Bushinsky said, using a nickname for Netanyahu popular among his supporters, 'but even a king has his limits.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Touts 'Obliteration' of Iran Sites Seen in Satellite Images
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said "monumental damage" was done to Iran's nuclear sites citing satellite imagery after Tehran disputed whether the strikes on the facilities had dealt a knockout blow to the Islamic Republic's atomic program. Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday that "obliteration is an accurate term" for the strikes on three key Iranian facilities amid attempts by analysts to clarify whether the strikes had completely destroyed Iran's hopes for developing a nuclear bomb. Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed told Newsweek that at this stage, Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back by the attacks but not entirely dismantled. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. MEHMET ESER//Getty Images Why It Matters Trump said the U.S. struck Fordow, around 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz. The U.S. president is often accused of hyperbole and social media posts saying Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been destroyed have been greeted with caution by analysts as questions remain over whether the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer spells the end of the Iranian nuclear threat. What To Know On Sunday, Trump posted that "monumental damage" had been done to all nuclear sites in Iran, citing satellite imagery. He described how the white structure in one image was embedded into the rock and the biggest damage took place far below ground level," adding "Bullseye!!!" U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said there was "severe damage and destruction" to the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, but did not say Iran's nuclear capacities had been obliterated. Trump did not share the imagery in his post but he could have been referring to pictures published by the firm Maxar on Sunday showing large craters or holes at the top of the ridge above the underground complex at Fordow. When asked if Iran still retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that "BDA is still pending" referring to Battle Damage Assessment by intelligence analysts and reconnaissance teams, using data from drones, satellites, radar, or ground reports. Melamed, a Middle East analyst told Newsweek Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Tehran can either escalate, which threatens the regime's survival, or negotiate, which would preserve its power base "while swallowing a bitter pill," he said. At this point, all eyes should be on Beijing who will likely pressure Iran to deescalate. Pranay Vaddi, who served as special assistant to President Joe Biden as well as senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, told the publication Defense One that if the deeper reaches of Fordow had survived, Iran could still enrich uranium beyond the reach of the monitors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). That may require further "high risk" U.S. action if the locations are beyond the reach of bunker-busting bombs. Also, Iran retains substantial know-how on enrichment and possibly nuclear weaponization, added Vaddi, senior nuclear fellow in the Center for Nuclear Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, has said it was not yet possible to assess the damage done at the Fordow nuclear facility. Iranian state media said key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved "to a safe location." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed: "At this stage, it can be assessed that Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled." Pranay Vaddi, former senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, to Defense One: "If the deeper reaches of Fordow survive, Iran is able to enrich, and there's no monitoring anymore because Iran suspends any IAEA access, that's a bad outcome and may require further U.S. action." What Happens Next Tehran has threatened retaliation for the strikes. Experts say these could include additional rocket launches at Israel, the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz or strikes against U.S. military sites.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Dramatic moment CNN's Anderson Cooper is forced to urgently evacuate set live on air during missile attack
Anderson Cooper and his CNN crew were forced to evacuate during a live broadcast from Israel Monday, after air raid sirens signaled an imminent threat in the area. The network star, 58, was forced to plug the plug on his newscast when sirens began ringing during his conversation with CNN's chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward, and Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond. As the trio discussed the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Ward quickly alerted the team that there was danger of escalating conflict behind them. Advertisement 3 Anderson Cooper and his CNN crew were forced to evacuate during a live broadcast from Israel Monday, after air raid sirens signaled an imminent threat in the area. CNN 'I should just say that we're now hearing an alert,' she said live on air. Cooper informed the audience that they were alerted to Israeli forces expecting a missile to hit their area in less than 10 minutes, prompting an immediate evacuation. Advertisement 'So these are these are the alerts that go out on all of our phones when you're in Israel. It's a ten-minute warning of incoming missiles or something incoming from Iran,' he said. 'So now the location we're in has a verbal alarm telling people to go down into bomb shelters. So we have about a ten-minute window to get down into a bomb shelter.' Cooper, whose voice began to waver as he read aloud the dire warning, asked the crew if it was possible to continue on with the newscast. 3 The network star, 58, was forced to plug the plug on his newscast when sirens began ringing during his conversation with CNN's chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward, and Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond. CNN Advertisement 3 Cooper informed the audience that they were alerted to Israeli forces expecting a missile to hit their area in less than 10 minutes, prompting an immediate evacuation. CNN 'And we'll continue to try to broadcast from that, that bomb shelter. And even if we can, on the way down,' he said, before asking one crew member to keep filming as they made their way away from the danger zone. 'All right. I think we're going to head down to the shelters. Chuck, do we have capabilities as we go down?' he asked. 'Just checking your microphones. Be ready in a second,' the crew member responded. Advertisement After a brief connection error, the live broadcast returned as the crew headed toward the shelter while air raid sirens continued to blare out. Cooper continued his conversation with Ward and Diamond, before a loud 90-second alarm, dubbed the 'red alert,' went off. 'It is a luxury to have a 10-minute warning,' Cooper remarked.
